Committee Findings for CEWs:
A REPORT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
AND CREATION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CONDUCTED ELECTRICAL WEAPONS
WITHIN A LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION

November 6, 2013

COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Committee Members
Joe Boyatt, Lieutenant –

Blue Ash Police Dept.

Todd Bruner, Officer –

Newtown Police Dept.

Tim Chin, Sergeant –

Terrace Park Police Dept.

John S. Ferguson, Sergeant –

North College Hill Police Dept.

Paul Hartinger, Chief of Police –

Blue Ash Police Dept.

Greg Hennecke, Risk Mgmt. –

Hylant Group

Jim Hicks, Sergeant –

Norwood Police Dept.

Eric Kirkland, Det. –

Wyoming Police Dept.

Tony Orue, Sergeant –

Hamilton Co. Sheriff’s Office

Dr. William Ralston –

Hamilton Co. Coroner’s Office

Dr. Lakshmi K. Sammarco –

Hamilton County Coroner

Robert W. Warfel, Super. S. A. –

FBI

Committee Chairman
Joseph G. Lally, Chief of Police -

Cheviot Police Department

Special Counsel to HCACOP
Scott T. Greenwood - Civil Rights Lawyer and National Use of
Force Expert

Page 2 of 22

FOREWARD
This report was the vision of the Hamilton County Association
of Chiefs of Police and its member agencies. The desire to be
at the forefront of safety with respect to less lethal technologies
illustrates the commitment of this organization to provide
support to the law enforcement community within Hamilton
County, Ohio.
The committee wishes to thank the members of the Hamilton
County Association of Chiefs of Police and especially the
executive board members for their support throughout the
development of this report. Without
their leadership, the creation of this
document

would

not

have

been

possible.

The Committee Members
June 28th, 2013

Page 3 of 22

LIABILITY STATEMENT
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations reported here are those of
the committee and do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the
Hamilton County Association of Chiefs of Police, any of the committee
members individually, or their respective police agencies or organizations.

This report is provided "as is" without any warranty of any kind, either
express or implied, arising by law or otherwise, including but not limited to
warranties of completeness, non-infringement, accuracy, or fitness for a
particular purpose.

This report is offered to its intended readers, the membership of the
Hamilton County Association of Chiefs of Police, for professional
development purposes only, and in order to assist fellow members develop
policies and protocols for CEW deployment in their agencies that are
consistent with each agency’s independent use of force policies as well as
law enforcement best practices.
The reader assumes all risk associated with use of this report and agrees
that in no event shall the Hamilton County Association of Chiefs of Police,
its executive board, the committee members, or their respective police
agencies or organizations be liable to the reader or any third party for any
indirect, special, incidental, punitive or consequential damages including,
but not limited to, damages for the inability to use equipment or access
Page 4 of 22

data, business interruptions, loss of information or data, or other financial
loss, arising out of the use of, or inability to use, the equipment discussed in
this report, based on any theory of liability including, but not limited to,
breach of contract, breach of warranty, tort (including negligence), or
otherwise, even if the reader has been advised of the possibility of such
damages.

Page 5 of 22

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................... 9
COMMITTEE FINDINGS......................................................... 11
TRAINING......................................................................................................... 14
MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................... 18
DEPLOYMENT ........................................................................................ 19
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 22

Page 6 of 22

INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared in response to recent media attention over Taser
deployments in which suspects subsequently died. Locally the story was
driven by plaintiffs’ attorney Alphonse A. Gerhardstein who authored a
position paper1 titled “Taser Risks in Hamilton County”. The executive
summary of that paper suggests that a specific “Electronic Control
Weapon”, the Taser, is an asset to law enforcement when used
“appropriately” but when used “inappropriately”, opines that the “risk of
death or serious injury of the subject greatly increases.”

This position paper proposed that a typical injury or death associated with
a Taser deployment occurs by one of two ways:
(1) The CEWs voltage when applied to a subject’s body captures the
subject’s normal heart rhythm and causes ventricular fibrillation2, or;
(2) A secondary injury occurs due to the NeuroMuscular Incapacitation
(NMI) of the subject as he falls and strikes an object.

1

http://www.gbfirm.com/litigation/documents/54_TaserRisksReport.pdf
The position paper relies on the findings of the Douglas P. Zipes article,” Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death
Following Application of Shocks from a TASER Electronic Control Device”, 125 Cardiac 2417 (2012) to support
his theory. This report only deals with a total of eight cases in which Zipes appeared as a paid consultant to
support this theory, and has not been broadly accepted.
2

Page 7 of 22

It is not disputed that during Taser deployments where NMI is achieved,
subjects in many cases collapse or fall to the ground, leaving them
susceptible to secondary injury caused by the ground or objects along the
way. However, the position paper does not give any statistics indicating
what percentage of subjects have either died or sustained serious injury
because of secondary impacts due to a CEW deployment. Instead his
paper relies almost exclusively on anecdotal evidence to support the theory
that because a suspect died in close proximity to the time of their Tasing,
the death then must be related to the application of the Taser.
Taser Death Still Festers in Vermont
Thetford, Vermont

The belief that Tasers
cause death, which is
promulgated

by

media,

plaintiffs’

Taser death lawsuit settled
Hurricane City, Utah

the
SBI Now Investigating Halifax County Taser Death
Halifax County, North Carolina
UC pays $2 million in Taser death case
Cincinnati,
Page 8Ohio
of 22
Euless woman sues over son's Taser death
Euless, Texas

attorneys, physicians (some of whom routinely work as expert witnesses in
TRD cases for attorneys), has motivated some law enforcement agencies
to remove the Taser from their agencies, limiting the defense options an
officer has available to deal with subjects who can be dangerous,
uncooperative, violent, and unwilling to submit to lawful civilian authority.

This report was prepared in an effort to provide support and guidance
relative to the deployment of Conducted Electrical Weapons (CEW),
specifically TASER-brand CEWs, by Law Enforcement Agencies. The goal
of the Committee was to present information that would be available to local
agencies to assist them in incorporating CEWs into the arsenal of tools their
officers can employ. It is our hope that
the information contained herein will
facilitate the creation and / or updating
of policies and procedures that are in
place

for

local

agencies’

CEW

programs.

Page 9 of 22

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Committee identified three (3) areas that
need to be addressed in this report. They are:
Training;
Maintenance; and,
Deployment.
This report will discuss issues relating to each
in that order.

Page 10 of 22

COMMITTEE FINDINGS
Police enforce social order through the legitimized use of force. 3 The United
States Supreme Court ruled in the 1989 Landmark
Case Graham v. Connor, that the determination of
objective reasonableness must be judged from the
perspective of the officer on the scene, allowing for
the fact that the officer must make split-second
judgments with respect to force options, in situations
that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. As such, there are those
instances where suspects who have
defied lawful authority, the officers
sworn and statutorily obligated to
enforce the peace, and sometimes
both parties have become injured
during their interaction.

There are many reasons for police agencies to strive to reduce injuries
sustained by suspects and police: (Reduction in liability, maintain
workforce, health and safety of police personnel, continuity of staffing
levels, negative perception by public, etc.). As such, law enforcement
administrators are always looking for advancements in technology to assist
National Institute of Justice website, “http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-offorce/welcome.htm”
3

Page 11 of 22

officers in accomplishing their mission. One such advancement was the
Taser. “The TASER X26 is a software upgradable electronic control device
manufactured by TASER
International,

Inc.

Electronic
Devices

Control
(ECD)

use

propelled wires or direct
contact
energy

to
to

conduct
affect

the

sensory and motor functions of the nervous system.”4

A 2011 study by the US Department of Justice (NIJ)5 on the use of ECDs
(referred to as CEDs in their report) included the following conclusions:


“All evidence suggests that the use of CEDs carries with it a risk as low as or
lower than most alternatives”



“There is currently no medical evidence that CEDs pose a significant risk for
induced cardiac dysrhythmia in humans when deployed reasonably.”



“The risks of cardiac arrhythmias or death remain low and make CEDs more
favorable than other weapons.”



“The literature suggests a substantial safety margin with respect to the use of
CEDs when they are used according to manufacturer’s instructions.”



“90% less suspect Injuries"

4
5

Taser X26E Operating Manual, page 4. Copyright 2007 Taser International, Inc.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/less-lethal/incustody-deaths.htm

Page 12 of 22



“CED use is associated with a significantly lower risk of injury than physical
force, so it should be considered as an alternative in situations that would
otherwise result in the application of physical force.”

Statistics gathered by Taser International reinforce those findings, pointing
to there being one (1) death per 2.5 million deployments. Their numbers
factor in estimates of 1,854,800 field uses / suspect applications (estimating
904 per day), and 1,351,891 training / voluntary applications (as of
04/09/2013).

Page 13 of 22

TRAINING
The most basic fundamental in matters involving the use of force is training.
As it relates to the CEW, this involves not only arming the officers with the
information that relates to the use of the device, but also empowering them
with the various aspects of its practical application.

1. Only officers who have been trained and certified on the use of the
CEW will have the device
made available to them.

2. Each officer who has the
CEW available to them as a
control device should receive
training on an annual basis.

3. Training should
include the
manufacturer’s
current
recommendations for
use of the device.

4. Officers should be instructed to check the device (visually observe the
arc, and listen for the clicks) at the beginning of every shift, to ensure
Page 14 of 22

that it is working properly. That check should be noted according to
department policy (i.e. on detail / time sheet).

5. Deployment of the device should be presented in the context of where
it fits into each individual department’s independent use of force
policy, along with other available options.

6. Officers need to be aware that the use of a CEW may carry the risk of
injury or death to the offender.

7. The officer should, when possible, announce their intention to use the
CEW prior to its deployment.

8. The training should also address the possibility that if deployment
does not create the desired effect, the officer could disengage from
the offender and consider their other use of force options.

9. Once the offender has been
taken into custody, an officer
should monitor and document
the

offender’s

physical

behavior

condition.

and
The

observation should continue until
such time as the offender is no
longer in their custody.
Page 15 of 22

10. Trained medical personnel should be summoned to
check the offender’s vital signs. An officer should be
present and record the information.

11. Photos should be taken of the probe contact
point(s) prior to their removal.

12. Officers should be instructed that following a
deployment, any detailed narratives should include
not just the elements of the criminal charges, but
also the factors that led them to use the particular level of force (why
they deemed it necessary). They should document their observations
relating to visual cues, as well as statements made by the offender.

13. Requesting and listening to the recording of radio traffic from the event
can be a useful tool for recalling details that they might otherwise have
left out.

14. Any use of a CEW by an officer other than a
laser-sighting or an arc display should be
documented in a use of force report and
investigation in the same manner as each
individual agency’s use of force policy requires
for any non-trivial use of force.
Page 16 of 22

Training should be documented relative to the Date, Topic, Content, and
Attendees. The documentation should be stored with personnel files.

Page 17 of 22

MAINTENANCE
Making sure that the CEW is functioning properly is critical to the safety of
both the officer and the offender. There are steps that the officer can take
to ensure that the device is operating as intended.
1. Manufacturer’s guidelines state that the CEW should be checked (see
Training point 4) at the beginning of each tour of duty.

2. Information from each CEW should be
downloaded at least bi-annually, after
deployment, or when a unit has been in
and out of service.

3. Should there be an incident that involved serious physical harm or
death, the CEW should be tested. If the department has access to
equipment, the units should be checked annually. Once an accepted
protocol is developed (IEC 62-792), units should be tested relative to
those standards.

4. A unit not functioning properly should be taken out of service
immediately and not returned to service unless and until the problem
has been identified and corrected.

Page 18 of 22

DEPLOYMENT
One of the stated goals of a police department is to protect the public, while
maintaining the safety of the officers. Our primary tool for protecting the
public is to aggressively pursue and apprehend violators. The unfortunate
reality is that the most common cause of officer injury involves those
occasions where an offender makes the decision to resist arrest.

1. A CEW is designed to enable the officer(s) to take an offender into
custody, while minimizing injury to the officer, the offender, or other
members of the public. This allows the officer to gain control of the
offender, thus facilitating their being taken into custody without the
need for further hand-to-hand combat.

2. Use of the CEW should be limited to those
instances wherein the offender presents a
threat or inherent risk of harm to
themselves, the officer, or others.

3. Consideration needs to be given to risks presented by the
environment and / or bystanders.

4. The officer should announce their intention to use the CEW prior to its
deployment, whenever possible.
Page 19 of 22

5. Officers should not use a CEW for pure pain compliance on a subject
who is passively resisting or simply verbally non-compliant. Drive
stuns can be used if necessary on a subject who is engaged in
defensive or active resistance. In the event a drive stun is used,
officers should give a verbal warning, if possible, and an opportunity
for compliance before and between applications.
6. Current manufacturer’s targeting protocols
should be followed in placement of the
projectiles / probes.

7. Location of where the probes made contact
should be documented, and contained in
any subsequent reports involving the deployment. Photos of the
site(s) where each probe entered should be taken when possible, and
when appropriate steps have been taken to ensure the offender’s
modesty.

8. The probes should be removed by personnel who have completed the
Taser training.

9. The EMT/EMS squad
should be summoned to

Page 20 of 22

take and record vitals as soon as practicable to the deployment and
subsequent custody of the offender. This can be performed at the
scene, or at a neutral location should the scene not be conducive.

Page 21 of 22

CONCLUSION
This report is a compilation of information gathered from committee
members, manufacturer’s recommendations, as well as other officials,
civilians, and private counsel.
The statements, perspectives, and opinions contained herein do not
necessarily reflect the official policies of the Hamilton County Association of
Chiefs of Police, the committee members individually, or their respective
police agencies or organizations.
The intention of the Hamilton County Association of Chiefs of Police and
this committee is for this report to be available as a reference and tool to
assist in the formulation, development, and drafting of use of force policies
which include CEWs. The committee concurs with the conclusions of the
United States Department of Justice which found the use of a CEW
enhances safety to both the public and police when officers are involved in
confrontations which may result in physical harm to themselves and/or the
offender.

Page 22 of 22